Griswold v. Connecticut

[ribozyme]

Roe v. Wade is mentioned in this forum (apparently “social justice” has more to do with abortion than discussing other topics such as global inequality) frequently. The case in questioned ruled that Connecticut’s ban on contraceptives (although it wasn’t seriously enforced) was a violation of the right to privacy (it isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.)

I wonder what Catholics think about this case. The case was specifically about privacy. Do you support that ruling?

Should this ruling be overturned so contraceptive access is an issue that goes back the states? Should the legal system uphold the Catholic interpretation of the soi-disant “natural law?” Should the government permit the “culture of contraception” that One More Soul talks about?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

 

[JimG]

Griswold v Connecticut seems to have attained a sacrosanct status in legal and political circles, mainly because the court reached a socially acceptable result.

Still, I wonder.

G v C created a right to privacy which is nowhere enumerated in the Constitution, a right which was later used to create a right to abortion. I have to wonder what would have been wrong with just saying that the Constitution says nothing about the sale of contraceptives, and letting states make their own legislation.

There is nothing in the constitution that says that the US Supreme Court must and is empowered to be the UAE (ultimate arbitrator of everything.) Are legislatures secondary or co-equal branches?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Roe V Wade was based on a right to privacy found "emanating from the penumbra of the 14th Amendment.

Here is the first clause of the 14th Amendment:

Amendment XIV

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(My emphasis.)

Maybe we should stop appointing justices who cannot read plain English.

 

[JimG]

Roe V Wade was based on a right to privacy found "emanating from the penumbra of the 14th Amendment.

Here is the first clause of the 14th Amendment:

(My emphasis.)

Maybe we should stop appointing justices who cannot read plain English.

Oh well, sure that’s the 14th amendment. But show me the penumbra along with those emanations. That’s where the real textual analysis lies!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Oh well, sure that’s the 14th amendment. But show me the penumbra along with those emanations. That’s where the real textual analysis lies!

Well, if I read it while sitting on the pot, the penumbra is about two feet to my right, on the toilet paper roll.

 

[rlg94086]

Roe v. Wade is mentioned in this forum (apparently “social justice” has more to do with abortion than discussing other topics such as global inequality) frequently. The case in questioned ruled that Connecticut’s ban on contraceptives (although it wasn’t seriously enforced) was a violation of the right to privacy (it isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.)

I wonder what Catholics think about this case. The case was specifically about privacy. Do you support that ruling?

Should this ruling be overturned so contraceptive access is an issue that goes back the states? Should the legal system uphold the Catholic interpretation of the soi-disant “natural law?” Should the government permit the “culture of contraception” that One More Soul talks about?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

Yes, of course. Griswold v. Connecticut was incorrectly decided. It should have been left up to the states to decide. Most people, self included, do believe that we have some “right to privacy”; however, it is not a constitutional right.

The decision was based on the Ninth Amendment.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Ironically, the purpose of that amendment was to limit the power of the federal government. The SCOTUS turned it on its head by saying that the government could now overturn a whole host of laws decided by the states (aka the people).

The “rights to privacy” are things we the people should determine through our legislative processes. In fact, a state could have included a “right to privacy” in their constitution, and it would be completely constitutional from a federal standpoint. (Perhaps some states have…I don’t know their constitutions very well.)

 

[mapleoak]

(apparently “social justice” has more to do with abortion than discussing other topics such as global inequality)

That is because abortion happens to be the single biggest social injustice and plague affecting the world today.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Yes, of course. Griswold v. Connecticut was incorrectly decided. It should have been left up to the states to decide. Most people, self included, do believe that we have some “right to privacy”; however, it is not a constitutional right.

The decision was based on the Ninth Amendment.

Ironically, the purpose of that amendment was to limit the power of the federal government. The SCOTUS turned it on its head by saying that the government could now overturn a whole host of laws decided by the states (aka the people).

The “rights to privacy” are things we the people should determine through our legislative processes. In fact, a state could have included a “right to privacy” in their constitution, and it would be completely constitutional from a federal standpoint. (Perhaps some states have…I don’t know their constitutions very well.)

California’s Constitution guarantees (not grants) a right to privacy.

 

[vern_humphrey]

California’s Constitution guarantees (not grants) a right to privacy.

Does that include a right not to be investigated if you kill another human being?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Does that include a right not to be investigated if you kill another human being?

I was giving comment to a specific post. I’ll not play your childish semantic games. Remember…weakest link. Good bye.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I was giving comment to a specific post. I’ll not play your childish semantic games. Remember…weakest link. Good bye.

Let the record show that I had a bitingly funny response to this post, but forebore to make it out of Christian charity.

 

[rlg94086]

California’s Constitution guarantees (not grants) a right to privacy.

Thanks! There is one example.

Now, an interesting question arises. There are drugs that are banned substances. If there is evidence that someone may possess those drugs a warrant can be attained, individual searched and arrested correct? Same goes for certain weapons, devices, etc.

So, the state could, if they decided to, ban contraceptive drugs and devices. If someone was then suspected of possessing said drugs or devices, a warrant could be attained and the person arrested. What would the difference be from a “privacy” standpoint?

 

[1ke]

Roe v. Wade is mentioned in this forum (apparently “social justice” has more to do with abortion than discussing other topics such as global inequality) frequently.

Social justice has to do with ALL injustices. Abortion is an injustice against the weakest among us.

The case in questioned ruled that Connecticut’s ban on contraceptives (although it wasn’t seriously enforced) was a violation of the right to privacy (it isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.)

The fabrication of the ‘right to privacy’ paved the way for abortion on demand. It was bad jurisprudence then and remains so now.

I wonder what Catholics think about this case. The case was specifically about privacy. Do you support that ruling?

There is no right to privacy. As I said, it was bad jurisprudence then and is bad jurisprudence now.

Should this ruling be overturned so contraceptive access is an issue that goes back the states? Should the legal system uphold the Catholic interpretation of the soi-disant “natural law?” Should the government permit the “culture of contraception” that One More Soul talks about?

Contraception should be illegal along with a host of other moral ills.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Thanks! There is one example.

Now, an interesting question arises. There are drugs that are banned substances. If there is evidence that someone may possess those drugs a warrant can be attained, individual searched and arrested correct? Same goes for certain weapons, devices, etc.

So, the state could, if they decided to, ban contraceptive drugs and devices. If someone was then suspected of possessing said drugs or devices, a warrant could be attained and the person arrested. What would the difference be from a “privacy” standpoint?

You’re just asking for a snippy answer, aren’t you?

 

[rlg94086]

You’re just asking for a **snippy **answer, aren’t you?

Well, not necessarily…they could ban vascectomies as well.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well, not necessarily…they could ban vascectomies as well.

And men would die of bungled back-alley vasectomies.

 

[mapleoak]

Most people when ask what exactly a so-called “right to privacy” actually is, they don’t have the foggiest clue. But somehow, believe it is some sort of innate property inherent to their being.

 

[mapleoak]

And men would die of bungled back-alley vasectomies.

Ya, you can’t make something like that illegal. People will cross state lines or seek out cheap global flights to in search of Joe’s budget vasectomy shop. Cheap, fast, and all sales final!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ya, you can’t make something like that illegal. People will cross state lines or seek out cheap global flights to in search of Joe’s budget vasectomy shop. Cheap, fast, and all sales final!

Or they’ll have to make do with a strategically placed combination lock.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Thanks! There is one example.

Now, an interesting question arises. There are drugs that are banned substances. If there is evidence that someone may possess those drugs a warrant can be attained, individual searched and arrested correct? Same goes for certain weapons, devices, etc.

So, the state could, if they decided to, ban contraceptive drugs and devices. If someone was then suspected of possessing said drugs or devices, a warrant could be attained and the person arrested. What would the difference be from a “privacy” standpoint?

I think probable cause issues apply. For example, if a person is walking down the street smoking a pipe and the smoke smells…different, that’s probable cause. If a person is stopped for some other legitimate reason and they have red eyes, obvious cottonmouth and are asking for Doritos, that’s probable cause.

It’s a bad interpretation of privacy to say that a person can kill the child within them because it’s “their own business.” What about the unborn child’s business?